# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2001_S323
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

OPINIONS OF COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS : 323

is the “exclusive use of doctrinally pure agenda, hymnbooks, and
catechisms in church and school,” making it the responsibility of
every church worker and congregation to carefully review the doc-
trinal content of all worship materials before their public use.

To assist church workers and congregations, Bylaw 3.928 c as-
signs to the Commission on Worship the function and duty to “rec-
ommend worship materials to the church and advise and warn
against the use of worship materials that are unworthy of use in the
corporate worship of the Lutheran Church.” Bylaw 3.929, by pro-
viding a careful process for accepting official service books and
hymnals of the Synod, also underscores the importance of this re-
sponsibility.

To further assist church workers and congregations, our Synod
has established Concordia Publishing House (CPH) for the purpose
of “developing, producing, marketing, and distributing products for
usc by members of the Synod” that are “approved through the
Synod’s prescribed procedure for doctrinal review before publica-
tion” (Bylaw 3.301 b). Such doctrinal review, prescribed by Bylaw
11.07, not only provides to church workers and congregations im-
portant assurance that CPH worship materials have been carefully
revicwed, but it also demonstrates the care that is to be taken in re-
viewing materials for use in public worship:

a. The reviewer shall make a careful evaluation of the doctrinal con-
tent of all items submitted to him.

b. The reviewer's primary concer is that items submitted to him be
in agreement in their doctrinal content with the Scriptures and the
Lutheran Confessions.

c. The reviewer shall also be concemed thal the items submitted to
him do not contain statements that are inadequate, misleading, ambigu-
ous, or lacking in doctrinal clarity.

Adopted May 5, 1999

The Relationship between Doctrinal
Resolutions and Doctrinal Statements (99-2149)

A pastor of the Synod requested an opinion from the CCM on
the relationship between doctrinal resolutions and doctrinal state-
ments, specifically the relationship between Bylaw 1.09, which
makes a clear distinction between doctrinal resolutions and doctri-
nal statements. and Bylaw 2.39 c, which he believes adds extra
weight to doctrinal resolutions and, in effect, obscures the distinc-
tion laid out in Bylaw 1.09. He writes in his April 21, 1999, letter:

My tear is that some person or group could use bylaw 2.39 ¢ to al-
templ to bind the consciences of many in the Synod to a doctrinal reso-
lution that might have passed by a narrow majority in convention but

did not have the ratifying consensus of a clear majority of the Synod’s

congregations.

The Commission’s response follows:

The question before the Commission is whether Bylaw 2.39 c
could be used to bind the conscience of the Synod to a doctrinal
resolution (Bylaw 1.09, b) that did not carry the weight of a doctri-
nal statement (Bylaw 1.09 c), requiring ratification by a two-thirds
majority of the Synod’s congregations.

The Commission notes, first of all, that the language regarding
doctrinal statements was inserted into the Bylaws by the Synod’s
1975 convention. Since that time there has not been one instance in
which the procedure for adoption of a doctrinal statement, requiring
passage by the Synod in convention by a two-thirds majority vote
and ratified by a two-thirds majority vote of the Synod’s congrega-
tions within a six-month period, has been followed.

The Commission also observes that the question that has been
submitted carries with it an inference that the Synod can “bind the
consciences” of its constituent members by the passage of either a
doctrinal resolution or a doctrinal statement. Such an inference is
not true unless resolutions or statements are “in harmony with
Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions” (Bylaw 1.09 a).

Dissent from doctrinal resolutions and statements is provided
for in Bylaw 1.09 d, which provides remedy under Bylaw 2.39 c.
With respect to dissent, the Bylaws make no distinction for dis-
senting parties between doctrinal resolutions and doctrinal state-
ments. The pertinent issue must always be whether the resolution or
statement is in conformity with Scripture and the Confessions.

Pending the outcome of any such appeals, Bylaw ].09 c 10 re-
quires that the dissenting party “continue to honor and uphold pub-
licly the statement as the position of the Synod.” This corresponds
to Bylaw 2.39 c, which preserves the right of brotherly dissent but
also provides that the “members of the Synod are expected as part
of the life together within the synodical fellowship to honor and to
uphold the resolutions of the Synod.”

Adopted July 8, 1999

Questions re Disagreement with a Board of Regents
Decision re Faculty Appointments (99-2150)

The Board of Regents of one of the Synod’s universities, in a
lettcr dated May 7, 1999, requested from the Commission a formal
response to a series of questions. The Commission responded to
each of the questions as follows:

May a regent or former regen! who disagrees with a faculty ap-
pointment decision of the Board of Regents which was made during
his/her lerm of service pursue that dissent by bringing charges agains
those responsible for recommending or making the appointment?

The Commission responds as follows:

The last sentence of Bylaw 3.69 | states, “Dissent to decisions
made by the entities and agencies [of the Synod] shall ordinarily
be expressed within the structure of the respective entity and
agency.” If the allegation is that proper procedure as outlined in
Bylaw 6.23 a, b, and c was not followed in making the appoint-
ment, that issue is one proper to be decided under the Synod’s Dis-
pute Resolution Process in Chapter VII of the Bylaws of the
Synod. However, if proper procedures were followed, the decision
of the Board of Regents is not subject to appeal.

If the answer to the first question is “yes,” may the charges be
pressed against the institulional president or others who recommended
the appointment?

The answer to this question is “‘no.” Faculty appointments are
the responsibility of the Board of Regents under Bylaw 6.03 h.

If the answer to the first question is “yes,” may the charges be
pressed against the Board of Regents as the body which made the ap-
pointment?

The answer to this question is “yes,” but as explained in the re-
sponse to the first question above, only if the issue is that the pro-
cedures followed in making the appointment were not in accord
with those prescribed in the Bylaws of the Synod.

If the answer to the third question above is “yes,” under what LCMS
Bylaws are such charges processed and by whom are they adjudicated?
As explained in the response to the first question above, the dis-

pute is processed under the provisions of the Synod’s Dispute Res-
olution Process as set forth in Chapter VIII of the Bylaws.

Adopted July 8, 1999

Questions re the Relationship of Bylaw 2.27
to Chapter VIII of the Bylaws (99-2151)

A District President, concerned that the Dispute Resolution
Process and the work of a District President may work at cross pur-
poses with each other, addressed the following questions to the
Commission on Constitutional Matters:

How do Bylaw 2.27 and Section VIII of the Bylaws, detailing the
operation of the synodical Dispute Resolution Process, relate to each
other? Or do the processes and procedures outlined by Bylaw 2.27 and
Scction VIII operale independently of and without regard for each
other?

The Commission responds that Bylaw 2.27 establishes a proce-
dure to terminate congregational or individual membership in the
Synod. In broad general terms, 2.27 a triggers the procedure, pro-
vides the initial steps to be taken by a District President, and de-
scribes the manner in which the concern is to be resolved; 2.27 b
describes if and how the Praesidium becomes involved; and 2.27
c stipulates what a District President is to do if he decides to seek
the expulsion of the member from the Synod. It is in 2.27 d which
describes what is to be done if the member contests the expulsion,
that the procedure now moves to Chapter VIII and specifically to

2001 Convention Workbook